Something else? Ask Aunt Vadge – bottom left of your screen!
Women’s health censorship is no longer operating quietly in the background of digital platforms. It is now being discussed in Parliament, documented by national media, and scrutinised through emerging regulatory frameworks.
Yet despite mounting evidence, major technology platforms continue to deny that women’s health content is being systematically restricted.
CensHERship, a women’s health advocacy initiative tracking and challenging digital censorship, has released an end-of-year update outlining significant political engagement, early regulatory movement, and plans for further action in 2026.
For organisations working in women’s health, education and care, the pattern is already familiar: legitimate clinical language, health education and research are routinely flagged as ‘sensitive’, ‘sexual’ or ‘political’, while abuse, misogyny and explicit threats remain visible and largely unchecked.
For example:
In the media, The Guardian reported on Meta shutting down global accounts linked to abortion advice and queer content.
A new piece in The Sunday Times set out the commercial impact of social media censorship on women’s health businesses including:
- Hertility having over 40% of campaigns blocked or delayed
- Essity’s Bodyform launch disrupted after Google banned its adverts
- HANX seeing up to 80% of ads rejected before going live
As Hertility founder Deirdre O’Neill said in the piece:
“There’s clear and direct discrimination in terms of what is permitted online.”
Data from CensHERship was cited in the piece, showing that 95% of women’s health creators have experienced censorship.
Despite this undisputed evidence, platforms continue to respond that ads were not blocked or that advertisers should simply appeal.
Women’s health censorship enters Parliamentary debate
In recent weeks, CensHERship joined Essity at a Parliamentary roundtable focused on the censorship of women’s health content online.
The discussion brought together Members of Parliament, founders, creators, doctors, clinicians and campaigners to examine how platform moderation systems disproportionately affect women’s health education, reproductive health information and sex-based research.
A key theme was the consistent shifting of responsibility onto individual creators and advertisers, rather than platforms addressing systemic moderation failures. Automated systems continue to penalise accurate anatomical language and evidence-based health information, while appeals processes remain opaque, slow and inconsistent.
Emily Darlington MP summarised the issue in a Politics Home briefing following the roundtable, highlighting the contradiction at the heart of platform policy enforcement.
She noted that companies claim they are unable to adequately suppress rape threats and misogynistic slurs, yet routinely block words such as endometriosis and fibroids for being ‘too sexual’ or ‘too political’.
Following the roundtable, CensHERship is continuing its work with Essity on next steps, including advocating for a Parliamentary debate, raising the issue through Prime Minister’s Questions, and engaging with regulators and platforms.
TikTok was the only social media platform to attend the roundtable. These efforts will form a central part of CensHERship’s advocacy work in 2026.
Early regulatory engagement and limited progress
While structural change remains slow, there have been some early indications of movement. A YouTube channel was reinstated after being wrongly removed, despite an initially unsuccessful appeal.
CensHERship has also received positive engagement on two complaints submitted under the Digital Services Act, and reports growing interest from additional organisations seeking to submit formal evidence.
These developments suggest that regulatory pressure may begin to create accountability where voluntary platform action has failed. However, they remain isolated wins within a much broader landscape of ongoing digital censorship.
New examples of social media censorship continue to emerge
Reports of women’s health censorship continue across multiple platforms. A job advertisement for research platform My Normative was removed from LinkedIn, apparently for referencing the gender and sex research gap.
Cycle tracking app Clue also had its 2025 round-up removed from LinkedIn twice after being deemed “inappropriate”.
My Vagina has also been censored at almost every turn, by everyone from government regulatory agencies trying to register our business name, to large tech platforms blocking our domain, and most recently, OpenAI deactivating My Vagina’s business account without warning.
These cases are not anomalies. They reflect entrenched moderation systems that treat women’s bodies, reproductive health and sex-based data as inherently problematic, regardless of context, accuracy or public health value.
Media coverage exposes commercial harm to women’s health businesses
Recent national media coverage has further documented the real-world consequences of social media censorship for women’s health organisations. Reporting has highlighted Meta shutting down global accounts linked to abortion advice and queer health content, alongside the financial and operational damage experienced by women’s health companies attempting to advertise or communicate online.
Investigations have shown high rates of advertising rejection, delayed campaigns and disrupted product launches across the sector. These barriers affect not only commercial viability but also public access to health information.
CensHERship’s own data has been cited in this reporting, showing that 95 per cent of women’s health creators have experienced some form of censorship. Despite this, platform responses continue to minimise the issue or suggest that advertisers and creators should rely on individual appeals, rather than addressing systemic bias.
Challenging stigma alongside regulation
Alongside political and regulatory advocacy, CensHERship is also supporting cultural efforts to normalise accurate anatomical language and evidence-based education.
Doctor Aziza Sesay, working with Tonia Daley-Campbell and producer Orique, has released the song They Are Not Bad Words, which challenges stigma around terms such as vulva, vagina and clitoris.
The project highlights how linguistic discomfort and cultural taboo continue to influence both human and algorithmic moderation decisions.
Why this matters for women’s health
A fair digital environment is not optional infrastructure for women’s health. It directly affects who can access information, who can run sustainable health services, and whose bodies are treated as legitimate subjects of education and care.
When platforms censor clinical language and evidence-based health content, they do not reduce harm. They entrench misinformation, silence expertise, and widen existing health inequities.
How to support the work
CensHERship is calling on individuals, practitioners and organisations to contribute by sharing their experiences through its ongoing survey, reading and circulating its white paper, and signing the open letter calling for accountability and transparency in platform moderation.
Demonstrating that women’s health censorship is a pattern, not a collection of isolated incidents, is essential to making it impossible for platforms to continue denying the problem.
About CensHERship
CensHERship is a women’s health advocacy initiative documenting and challenging the censorship of women’s health content across digital platforms.
Clio Wood is a women’s health advocate, author, and founder of &Breathe, and Anna O’Sullivan is the founder of FutureFemHealth and a former director of communications for a global education company.
